Desmond is better than betancort. And linty, I think ladson is saying that in terms that ID isn't afraid to speak up. Look @ that clubhouse its a lot of quiet guys. Someone like swisher would be a good voice.

All in all, the errors were a lot and I like to think in his second full season he'd only have 20ish. The bat was decent, except for a slow start and tired finish.

Tell me, please, where this massive improvement is going to come from? The pressure of the majors? Our wonderful coaching staff? The guy has never been a consistently good defensive SS, but yet this organization believes that moving a fantastic defensive SS is the right way to go.

Offensively Desmond is average at best. He doesn't walk, he strikes out a lot, and doesn't have a solid average. But he's a "winner," right? So he's the future SS while we will hurt our team by moving Espinosa to 2B.

I don't understand how Espinosa's value is hurt @ 2B? Who the freak cares where he plays as long as he can hit and play defense. His glove was fantastic, but he owned a .218 average, so if we're going to cut a young Desmond may as well cut a young Espinosa.

Quite frankly, I don't care who is out there, but obviously the coaches/think tank is high on ID @ SS. And it's not like we have better options in our system now do we? Gonzalez? Orr? No thanks.

I don't understand how Espinosa's value is hurt @ 2B? Who the freak cares where he plays as long as he can hit and play defense. His glove was fantastic, but he owned a .218 average, so if we're going to cut a young Desmond may as well cut a young Espinosa.

Quite frankly, I don't care who is out there, but obviously the coaches/think tank is high on ID @ SS.

More intelligent posters than myself have argued that Espinosa's projected offensive value is much higher at SS rather than at 2B. (If I'm remembering correctly)

More intelligent posters than myself have argued that Espinosa's projected offensive value is much higher at SS rather than at 2B. (If I'm remembering correctly)

i know what you're saying, but i don't believe in that. who cares where he plays as long as he hits and plays good defense. dan uggla isn't your protypical 2B, but he seems to be doing something right in florida.

if there are better options in the line-up than desmond, then by all means ... play that option.

I don't understand how Espinosa's value is hurt @ 2B? Who the freak cares where he plays as long as he can hit and play defense. His glove was fantastic, but he owned a .218 average, so if we're going to cut a young Desmond may as well cut a young Espinosa.

Quite frankly, I don't care who is out there, but obviously the coaches/think tank is high on ID @ SS. And it's not like we have better options in our system now do we? Gonzalez? Orr? No thanks.

Um, I don't know that many of us really care about where he is as a function of his bat (though it's true that his projected numbers are better for an SS than a 2B). Rather, we'd prefer that the better defender (Espinosa) be at SS. If Espinosa was the next coming of Mickey Mantle offensively we would still prefer him at SS over Desmond.

Um, I don't know that many of us really care about where he is as a function of his bat (though it's true that his projected numbers are better for an SS than a 2B). Rather, we'd prefer that the better defender (Espinosa) be at SS. If Espinosa was the next coming of Mickey Mantle offensively we would still prefer him at SS over Desmond.

well i guess the nats see something different, don't know what to tell ya.

More intelligent posters than myself have argued that Espinosa's projected offensive value is much higher at SS rather than at 2B. (If I'm remembering correctly)

My problem with that argument is what if Desmond can't learn second base? Espinosa has already shown he can, and Desmond's range and arm show he has the talent to play short. I couldn't find a game log for fielding, but I am pretty sure he had more errors in less games before the all-star break. Even with all the errors Desmond still has an average major league player, and that was this teams main problem. They had replacement level players at center, right, catcher, and second for most of the year. Fill those four spots with average major league talent and you are looking at a 8-12 game improvement. Of course that also means you need to keep Adam Dunn or find anoth 4-5 WAR player for first.

well i guess the nats see something different, don't know what to tell ya.

The Nats believe, and I'm sure they have data we don't have access to to back this up, that Desmond has the "best" range of any SS in the game (as far as I can tell from the statistics available this isn't true, but okay), that his errors are mostly on balls that other SSes don't get to (again, possible, but he makes so many of them that it's definitely cost the team some runs), and that his overall defensive profile is already improving and will improve further with more experience at SS (improbable from where I'm sitting). Now, keep in mind that this is what the FO is saying publicly, so it's possible that internally they're having a very different discussion re: Desmond's ultimate place on the team vs. Espinosa's. Recently Rizzo has been a bit less emphatic about whether Espinosa is really going to be at 2B throughout next year, saying that there would be further evaluation at spring training, etc. But to deduce anything else from that would be pure speculation.

My problem with that argument is what if Desmond can't learn second base? Espinosa has already shown he can, and Desmond's range and arm show he has the talent to play short. I couldn't find a game log for fielding, but I am pretty sure he had more errors in less games before the all-star break. Even with all the errors Desmond still has an average major league player, and that was this teams main problem. They had replacement level players at center, right, catcher, and second for most of the year. Fill those four spots with average major league talent and you are looking at a 8-12 game improvement. Of course that also means you need to keep Adam Dunn or find anoth 4-5 WAR player for first.

If Desmond can't learn second base, and we have two ostensibly major-league quality shortstops, the logical solution is to trade the one we don't want! It's a luxury the Nats haven't really had yet in their brief existence (except maybe with the bullpen this year) but it is what good teams with depth do when they have a surplus of starting players at one position. Obviously this is contingent on our being able to adequately fill 2B, of course, whether with a player acquired in the trade or someone else. But if Desmond can learn 2B--and I have yet to see any evidence that he cannot, especially since many former shortstops switch to 2B later in their careers--then this all becomes moot. At the very least, in the interest of being conscientious the Nats should have Desmond familiarize himself with playing 2B during the offseason and/or spring training. If it turns out he can't ameliorate himself to the position, so be it.

If Desmond can't learn second base, and we have two ostensibly major-league quality shortstops, the logical solution is to trade the one we don't want! It's a luxury the Nats haven't really had yet in their brief existence (except maybe with the bullpen this year) but it is what good teams with depth do when they have a surplus of starting players at one position.

Yes but then we have a hole at second again that this team simply hasn't filled since Vidro became a problem. Suddenly the hole is filled with an average to above average player. Why create a hole when you don't have to?

The Nats believe, and I'm sure they have data we don't have access to to back this up, that Desmond has the "best" range of any SS in the game (as far as I can tell from the statistics available this isn't true, but okay), that his errors are mostly on balls that other SSes don't get to (again, possible, but he makes so many of them that it's definitely cost the team some runs), and that his overall defensive profile is already improving and will improve further with more experience at SS (improbable from where I'm sitting). Now, keep in mind that this is what the FO is saying publicly, so it's possible that internally they're having a very different discussion re: Desmond's ultimate place on the team vs. Espinosa's. Recently Rizzo has been a bit less emphatic about whether Espinosa is really going to be at 2B throughout next year, saying that there would be further evaluation at spring training, etc. But to deduce anything else from that would be pure speculation.

fair enough.

i think riggleman/rizzo are high on him. again the errors were awful this year, but i think he improved a bit and i'm hoping his numbers go down next year. bob/ray would comment some of the plays he made towards the end of the year (eating plays when there was no throw, going for the sure out, etc) as a sign of progress.

and while i think he has good range, i agree he in no way has the best range in the game.

Yes but then we have a hole at second again that this team simply hasn't filled since Vidro became a problem. Suddenly the hole is filled with an average to above average player. Why create a hole when you don't have to?

Right. But as I said above, the Nats owe it to themselves to at least see if Desmond can make the switch... if he can't, no harm done.

The thing is that Desmond plays SS like a 2B and Espinosa plays 2B like a SS.

+1.

I only see the Nats when they play the Muts, but that was enough to see Desmond appear to be hand-cuffed on hard-hit grounders. Desmond hits more like a typical 2B.

Espinosa seems to have range and a strong arm. His hitting, on paper, looks like Eddie Brinkman or Kevin Elster. Brinkman was a good enough fielder that he started st SS for the Nats all through the '60s. Espinosa has a hardr swing, power power, than Brinkman, but he looked a lot like J Maxwell in those last Muts games.

Mostly in the way he plays the ball. I was always taught to attack the ball from SS as often as possible. He stays back and relies on his arm too much and not his legs to work in tandem with his arm. It's less of an issue to do that at 2B.